Affordable Workstation Graphics Card Shoot-Out 141
MojoKid writes "While workstation graphics cards are generally much more expensive than their gaming-class brethren, it's absolutely possible to build a budget-minded system with a workstation-class graphics card to match. Both NVIDIA and ATI have workstation-class cards that scale down below $500, a fraction of the price of most high-end workstation cards. This round-up looks at three affordable workstation cards, two new FireGL cards from AMD/ATI and a QuadroFX card from NVIDIA, and offers an evaluation of their relative performance in applications like Cinema 4D, 3D StudioMax, and SpecViewperf, as well as their respective price points."
All I can say is... (Score:5, Informative)
...if you're planning on using a Linux workstation, don't buy an ATI card. I don't mean this as flamebait, just practical advice. Even with the new proprietary drivers or even the open source drivers, there are still many, many problems. Of course, I prefer ATI on Windows, so it all depends on what you want to do.
Re:Difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Difference? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Difference? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Gaming vs Workstation Cards (Score:3, Informative)
Gaming grade video cards tend to be very fast at special types of pixel shaders and excel at polishing the image to look better. Where they tend to be inaccurate is how they clamp the textures and even then it's fuzzy estimates that only are ever issues at extreme angles.
This is only in the way it displays data and wouldn't cause a COD program to "fall over."
Workstation cards are primarily high polygon crunchers. Games are rendered entirely in Triangles, whereas rendering programs use Triangles, Quadrangles and honest to goodness polygons (5+ sides).
Re:All I can say is... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Difference? (Score:4, Informative)
Make your own Quadro at a fraction of the price (Score:5, Informative)
http://aquamac.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=hack2&action=display&thread=1178562617 [proboards106.com]
Re:Difference? (Score:2, Informative)
eg, the fast texture sampling methods on gaming cards lead to aliasing errors, where the pixel is in error compared to a refernce rendering.
There are also a lot more factors to this than just floating point precision, for example how the edges of polys are treated, how part-transparent textures are treated and how textures are sampled and blended.
in short... go for the CPU (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason you should have for upgrading your graphics card within the 'consumer' market is if your viewport redraws are being sluggish; this will still allow you to play games properly* as well.
The only reason to upgrade to e.g. FireGL or a QuadroFX is if you're pushing really massive amounts of polys and want a dedicated support line; e.g. for 3ds Max, there's the MaxTreme drivers for the QuadroFX line - you don't get that for a consumer card.
* on the other hand, do *not* expect to play games with a QuadroFX properly. Do not expect frequent driver upgrades just to fix a glitch with some game. Do not expect the performance in games to be similar to, let alone better than, that of the consumer cards.
For 3D Artists dealing with rendering, the CPU should always be the primary concern (faster CPU / more cores = faster rendering**) followed by more RAM (more fits in a single render; consider a 64bit O/S and 3D Application), followed by a faster bus (tends to come with the CPU)/faster RAM, followed by a faster drive (if you -are- going to swap, or read in lots of data, or write out lots of data, you don't want to be doing that on a 4200RPM drive with little to no cache) followed by another machine to take over half the frames or half the image being rendered (** 'more cores' only scales up to a limited point. A second machine overtakes this limit in a snap), as long as you don't have something slow like a 10MBit network going (for data transfer).
Re:Difference? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Difference? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Workstation class?? (Score:5, Informative)